BUNDELKHAND TRAVELS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three petitions involve similar question of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. For convenience disposal of these cases, the facts given in W. P. No. 2226/95, Mis Vikas Travels v. State of M. P. and anr. are taken into consideration.

(2.) THE petitioner by this petition has prayed that the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur may be directed to issue renewal slip of regular permit No. Psts. No. 2/84 on the route Mandla to Seoni via Nainpur. It is also prayed that sub-rule (3) of Rule 72 and sub-rule (1) (a) of the Rule 73 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 be declared invalid/uftra vires being unworkable and being framed in excess of the rule making authority under the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) THE petitioner has a fleet of 9 buses. He is having 5 regular permits. The list of the permits and the buses has also been shown in the application form of renewal application. The petitioner is being granted continuous temporary permit during the pendency of the renewal application and the renewal application is still pending. It is submitted that these M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 came into force from August, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1994 ). The new Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 provides application and permit forms under Rules 72 (1) (a) and 73 (i) Form M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules 42 (SCPA) and M. P. MVR 48 (SCP) in that particular vehicle number is required to be mentioned and no other vehicle owned by the permit holder can ply on that permit. Under the earlier M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, there were two type of application forms and permit forms. One form was Pst. P. and the other was P. St. S. The P. St. S. form was in respect of the particular vehicle in which vehicle number is to be mentioned and other form was P. St. P. in which any one vehicle of the fleet can be plied as per the terms of the permit condition. These two type of forms were prescribed in public interest and for facilitates of the persons who owned more vehicles and in the interest of public and as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 82 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 are unworkable and it deprives the petitioner to utilise anyone of his stage carriage under the regular permit held by the petitioner in question. The petitioner is being deprived to use his other bus in the case of break down or in any other emergency to replace the bus which may be entered in the permit. In this way, the said rule deprives the petitioner to do his trade freely. The restrictions so imposed to restrict the petitioner from using his other buses of the fleet under the permit in terms of the permit conditions are unreasonable, unjust and violative of Articles 19 (1) (g) and 14 of the Constitution of India. Likewise, the Rules 72 and 73 prescribing only one type of forms for permits are also violative of the objects of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same are against the public interest at large. Therefore, it is prayed that sub-rule (3) of Rule 72 and sub-rule (1) (a) of Rule 73 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 may be declared as ultra vires.